anihilation or immortality for the lost?

[Dr. Walter]

The Greek term translated "destroy" in Matthew 10:28 does not mean anihilate. The same word is used two more times in the same chapter by Christ and it is translated "lost" in verse 6 and "lose" in verse 39. Trying to read "anihilate" into either of these verses shows how foolish that idea of "destroy" is. The term is made up of the preposition "apo" and the verb "lummi" and literally means to loose away and the idea is not destruction in the sense if anhilation but destruction in the sense of being rendered useless. The house of Israel was in their unsaved condition were rendered useless to God's service. In verse 39 the man who lives for himself renders his life useless for the glory of God but a man who renders his life useless to himself lives for the glory of God.

Furthermore, note what man can and cannot do. He can render the body useless by destroying it through death but he cannot render the soul useless through killing the body.

Yet those who believe the heresy of anihilation in gehenna also embrace the heresy of cessation of soul existence at death. Such a doctrine calls Christ a liar as Christ says killing the physical body does not render the soul inactive or useless.

The common response of those who belileve these heresies is to run from this context and hop to another context pitting scripture against scripture.

They cannot kill the soul. However, those believe in anihilation also believe the soul is anhilated when they are killed by either man of God.

In Matt 10 Christ states that BOTH body AND soul are destroyed in hell. This does not mean that the wicked will not be tormented in fire and brimstone before being finally and fully destroyed.



Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear [b]those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Luke 12
4 ""I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.
5 ""But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!

 

[BobRyan]

The Greek term translated "destroy" in Matthew 10:28 does not mean anihilate.

It means to "reduced to ashes".

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )

The term is made up of the preposition "apo" and the verb "lummi" and literally means to loose away and the idea is not destruction in the sense if anhilation but destruction in the sense of being rendered useless.

You confuse base requirement with possible scope and that idea does not work in general nor in specific.

One may say "I am going to do away with this grass on my sidewalk" then latter replant it in the yard, toss it in a garbage can or burn it to ashes. The bas requirement for the phrase and terms used does not demand that they burn it to ashes but it allows for that scope.

Thus when we see that destruction (apollium) as applied to Sodom takes it all the way to "ashes" there is basis at all for ignore that same scope with the case for "body and soul" in Matt 10:28.

(Obviously it is sensless to leave it as "loose the body").

Christ makes the point clear that in the first death the body is killed and the soul is not. Christ then uses a stronger term to describe what happens to BOTH body and soul in fiery hell. A term that takes Sodom to "ashes".

Furthermore, note what man can and cannot do. He can render the body useless by destroying it through death

Here again - the minimum term is "useless" and does not require death or the body returning to ashes for the body to be "useless" - paralysis would do. Christ does not say that in this life men are able to "make the body useless" -- he says "kill the body".

The text is showing a progression -- from killing the body in the first death case - to destroying (not merely killing) both body and soul in fiery hell.

In the first death case - the body is killed which reduces it to dust -- which is always the context for the body "in death" in the Bible.

Christ then points to a progression from that lesser end (the first death that merely reduced the body to dust) - to the greater end - the one that "destroys" BOTH body and soul - as Sodom was destroyed and thus reduced to ashes.

Yet those who believe the heresy of anihilation in gehenna also embrace the heresy of cessation of soul existence at death.

Not necessarily. They believe that the soul goes into a dormant state at death. They believe that the "living soul" condition ends - but the dormant soul - in a state of sleep - is left waiting for the resurrection.

The believe is that the spirit of ALL men "goes back to God who gave it" Eccl 12:7 at death - and is retained in that dormant state until the resurrection.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Lets look at this proof that the destruction of the wicked is not eternal.

Because I can't really read this in the posting box, I will repost the verses.

Matthew 10:28 (King James Version)

28And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The question is, does this mean the destruction is speaking about annihilation?

Consider:

Romans 14:15 (King James Version)

15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Does it mean we can annihilate our "brothers" with meat?

Indeed - given that the context in Matt 10:28 is a progression from "kill" to "destroy" and given that in Romans 14 your brother is not killed much less destroyed to some level "beyond kill" - the context demands that Romans 14 is not the example to illustrate the Matt 10 usage.

Rather we have the case of Sodom - undergoing eternal fire - illustrated as an example of "apollium" -- "destroy" that takes it all the way to "ashes".

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )

We find these people again in:

1 Peter 3

18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

This text refers to the Spirit of Christ preaching specifically to the people of Noah's day (not before not after) DURING the time when the ark was being built.

As Peter states in chapter 1 "the Spirit of Christ IN THEM" was indicating the sufferings of Christ AND the glory to follow.

And in this case the "holy man of old" is Noah "a preacher of righteousness" according to Peter - 2Pet 2:5.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

The term does not mean to "reduce to ashes" as clearly demonstrated by Christ's use of the same term in the same chapter in verses 6 and 39. In verse 6 you would have His disiciples to preach to what was "reduced to ashes." In verse 39 you would have salvation based upon being "reduced to ashes."

Obviously, your definition is not correct or else this very usage by Christ before and after Matthew 10:28 is reduced to absurdum. The destruction of those at Sodom and Gormorrah refers to their bodies being rendered inoperable for use by their souls because of physical death or separation of the soul from the body.

Furthermore, it is an absolute statement of fact concerning what Christ says man can and can't do to other men. They can kill the body but they cannot kill the soul. When men kill the body they are really reacting against the soul expression through the body trying to destroy the soul. Can a man kill the body of another man? Yes! By that act can they kill the soul? No!

Furthermore, even God cannot destroy either body or soul in Gehenna in the sense of anihilate or "reduce to ashes" as the term does not mean that. He renders their hatred and rebellion against God inoperable, useless, vain as it is enclosed within a restricted zone where they cannot unleash it toward anyone but other God haters.

The Sadducees did not believe in the conscious existence of the human spirit after death but rather they believed in the total anihilation of the soul and body at death thus no need for resurrection. Both Paul and Jesus took the side of the Pharisees which believe in the conscious existence of the soul at the death of the physical body as well as a future resurrection or reunion of the soul and body. The Rabbi's often used the valley of Gehenna as a pictorial illustration of eternal punishment against those who defined what they taught them to obey. Jesus simply took up this common illustration to teach the eternity of concious punishment of sinners for their sins. Justice does not contradict God's love and the only place you can find God's love is "in Christ" because outside of Christ "the wrath of God abideth" (Jn. 3:36).

It means to "reduced to ashes".

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )




You confuse base requirement with possible scope and that idea does not work in general nor in specific.

One may say "I am going to do away with this grass on my sidewalk" then latter replant it in the yard, toss it in a garbage can or burn it to ashes. The bas requirement for the phrase and terms used does not demand that they burn it to ashes but it allows for that scope.

Thus when we see that destruction (apollium) as applied to Sodom takes it all the way to "ashes" there is basis at all for ignore that same scope with the case for "body and soul" in Matt 10:28.

(Obviously it is sensless to leave it as "loose the body").

Christ makes the point clear that in the first death the body is killed and the soul is not. Christ then uses a stronger term to describe what happens to BOTH body and soul in fiery hell. A term that takes Sodom to "ashes".



Here again - the minimum term is "useless" and does not require death or the body returning to ashes for the body to be "useless" - paralysis would do. Christ does not say that in this life men are able to "make the body useless" -- he says "kill the body".

The text is showing a progression -- from killing the body in the first death case - to destroying (not merely killing) both body and soul in fiery hell.

In the first death case - the body is killed which reduces it to dust -- which is always the context for the body "in death" in the Bible.

Christ then points to a progression from that lesser end (the first death that merely reduced the body to dust) - to the greater end - the one that "destroys" BOTH body and soul - as Sodom was destroyed and thus reduced to ashes.




Not necessarily. They believe that the soul goes into a dormant state at death. They believe that the "living soul" condition ends - but the dormant soul - in a state of sleep - is left waiting for the resurrection.

The believe is that the spirit of ALL men "goes back to God who gave it" Eccl 12:7 at death - and is retained in that dormant state until the resurrection.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

>Do the Laws of Thermodynamics apply in Heaven and/or Hell?

Maybe they are applied selectively. You could not walk on the streets of gold without the 2nd law applying. It would be more slippery than wet polished ice.

 

[billwald]

post 24, good answer

but

>Justice does not contradict God's love and the only place you can find God's love is "in Christ" because outside of Christ "the wrath of God abideth" (Jn. 3:36).

Agree that God applies his love "in Christ," to anyone he chooses (elects) but that's not exactly what you mean, is it? God could apply his love in Christ to my old dog, Benny, and I think/hope he did.

 

[BobRyan]

As we saw in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah "destroyed" (appollium) this term has been used by NT writers to refere to destruction to the point of "reduced to ashes" - when it comes to the "punishment of eternal fire".

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed (Apollumi)them all.

(destroy - )

The term does not mean to "reduce to ashes"

Your argument is with the text.

We have an undeniable example of fire-and-brimstone - eternal fire - causing Apollumi to a city "undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" - that "reduces them to ashes".

as clearly demonstrated by Christ's use of the same term in the same chapter in verses 6 and 39. In verse 6 you would have His disiciples to preach to what was "reduced to ashes." In verse 39 you would have salvation based upon being "reduced to ashes."

Your attempt at a wooden rule does not work -- since we have the undeniable example of Apollum- eternal fire - fire and brimstone punishment - "reducing them to ashes" in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Your argument above that this cannot be the meaning of the word - fails in that regard.

What is proven beyond doubt is the argument for "context" just as we might have expected under the detailed principles of exegesis.

Obviously, your definition is not correct or else this very usage by Christ before and after Matthew 10:28 is reduced to absurdum. The destruction of those at Sodom and Gormorrah refers to their bodies being rendered inoperable

No mention at all in all of the NT of "bodies of those in Sodom rendered inoperable".

Your argument is with the text.

Furthermore, it is an absolute statement of fact concerning what Christ says man can and can't do to other men. They can kill the body but they cannot kill the soul.

Indeed - they kill the body - and it is reduced to "dust" - (from dust to dust).

Can a man kill the body of another man? Yes! By that act can they kill the soul? No!

Correct - the soul goes into a dormant state that Paul calls "sleep" in 1Thess 4 and 1Cor 15 - as also Christ stated in John 11.

By contrast - both the soul and the body are subjected to the same kind of "appollumi" as Sodom -- they undergo "the punishement of eternal fire" - "fire and brimstone" - and are "reduced to ashes".


2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed (Apollumi)them all.

Furthermore, even God cannot destroy either body or soul in Gehenna in the sense of anihilate or "reduce to ashes"

How so?

Hint: "God alone possess immortality" 1Tim 6:16

"the SOUL that sins - it shall die" Ezek 18:4

The "even God cannot destroy" argument does not survive the sola scriptura test.

He renders their hatred and rebellion against God inoperable

That text is not found in Matt 10:28

The Sadducees did not believe in the conscious existence of the human spirit after death but rather they believed in the total anihilation of the soul and body at death

True.

That was their error.

. Both Paul and Jesus took the side of the Pharisees which believe in the conscious existence of the soul at the death of the physical body

Not even close.

In fact in Matt 22 Christ argues FOR the resurrection based on the unconscious state of the saints in death.

And Paul affirms that the case of the "DEAD in Christ" is in fact the case of those "Who have fallen asleep" 1Thess 4.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

There is no evidence that the term "apollumi" in regard to Sodom and Gormorah in Luke 17:29 means "reduced to ashes" any more than "apollumi" in Luke 7:27 means "downing by water" or "water logged." Luke 7:27 is equally an example drawn from the Old Testament to illustrate final judgement.
In Matthew 10:28 the act of killing the body does not "reduce it to dust." Reduction to dust occurs a long time after being killed. Neither does the "soul" go into an unconscious state as that is your unfounded and distorted interpretation.

The Greek term "apollumi" does not change meaning from text to text. No Greek verb changes meaning from text to text.

If that kind of hermeneutics was justified anyone could make any text mean what they wanted.

Apollumi does not mean one thing in Matthew 10:6 and then another thing in Matthew 10:28 and then another thing in Matthew 10:39. If that is your hermeneutic then there is no hope of intelligent conversation with you and you can't be taken serious.

As we saw in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah "destroyed" (appollium) this term has been used by NT writers to refere to destruction to the point of "reduced to ashes" - when it comes to the "punishment of eternal fire".

[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

(destroy - )



Your argument is with the text.

We have an undeniable example of fire-and-brimstone - eternal fire - causing Apollumi to a city "undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" - that "reduces them to ashes".



Your attempt at a wooden rule does not work -- since we have the undeniable example of Apollum- eternal fire - fire and brimstone punishment - "reducing them to ashes" in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Your argument above that this cannot be the meaning of the word - fails in that regard.

What is proven beyond doubt is the argument for "context" just as we might have expected under the detailed principles of exegesis.




No mention at all in all of the NT of "bodies of those in Sodom rendered inoperable".

Your argument is with the text.





Indeed - they kill the body - and it is reduced to "dust" - (from dust to dust).



Correct - the soul goes into a dormant state that Paul calls "sleep" in 1Thess 4 and 1Cor 15 - as also Christ stated in John 11.

By contrast - both the soul and the body are subjected to the same kind of "appollumi" as Sodom -- they undergo "the punishement of eternal fire" - "fire and brimstone" - and are "reduced to ashes".


2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed (Apollumi)them all.




How so?

Hint: "God alone possess immortality" 1Tim 6:16

"the SOUL that sins - it shall die" Ezek 18:4

The "even God cannot destroy" argument does not survive the sola scriptura test.





That text is not found in Matt 10:28




True.

That was their error.



Not even close.

In fact in Matt 22 Christ argues FOR the resurrection based on the unconscious state of the saints in death.

And Paul affirms that the case of the "DEAD in Christ" is in fact the case of those "Who have fallen asleep" 1Thess 4.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire."

2 Peter 2:6
"and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;"

Luke 17:29
"but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed (Apollumi) them all."

There is no evidence that the term "apollumi" in regard to Sodom and Gormorah in Luke 17:29 means "reduced to ashes"

Apparently it's meaning does not prevent the 2Peter 2:6 "destruction by reducing them to ashes," - In fact I would argue that it fully demands it.

But we may choose to differ on that point.

any more than "apollumi" in Luke 7:27 means "downing by water" or "water logged."

Clearly "context is everything".

Thus when speaking of the fird-and-brimstone eternal fire event called "fiery hell" in Matt 10:28 - and then looking at the "punishment" by fire and brimstone eternal fire of Sodom and Gomorrah - "given as an example of undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" the reader will see that both Peter and Jude argue that Sodom is a valid "example" of the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;



And by contrast - you are arguing that Luke 7:27 is the better "example" for our focus on the issue of "destruction" and fiery hell.

Luke 7
27 "This is the one about whom it is written,
'BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU,
WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU.

Luke 7:27 is equally an example drawn from the Old Testament to illustrate final judgement.

Right then - we leave that one as an "exercise for the reader" to see which "example" is the more instructive and applicable when it comes to "destruction" in fiery hell.

In Matthew 10:28 the act of killing the body does not "reduce it to dust."

I beg to differ.


17 Then to Adam He said, ""Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, "You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
18 ""Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.''

22 Then the LORD God said, ""Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever''
23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Reduction to dust occurs a long time after being killed.

Christ does not argue "They are not able to instantly reduce the body to dust - but must wait a while".

Christ does not argue that there is anything "lacking" at all in what they are able to do to the body.

Christ's argument is that they are not able to do to the soul - what they are able to do to the body.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

You missed my point! A verb does not change meaning from text to text. The earthly "cities" may have been "reduced to ashes" but that does not mean the verb "apollumi" means "reduced to ashes." Indeed, by its overall usage it cannot mean that. Gehenna was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem that burned perpetually but it was just an earthly illustration of an eternal reality that is not parallel in all of its features. Sodom and Gomorah illustrate judgement by fire and brimstone but is not capable of being compared on every level parallel with the literal eternal judgement to come.

This is especially true when there is much more Biblical evidence that must be considered in order to draw final conclusions. When the overall Biblical evidence is brought into this discussion it will be seen that your theory is developed by dismissing other Biblical evidences to the contrary.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire."

2 Peter 2:6
"and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;"

Luke 17:29
"but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed (Apollumi) them all."



Apparently it's meaning does not prevent the 2Peter 2:6 "destruction by reducing them to ashes," - In fact I would argue that it fully demands it.

But we may choose to differ on that point.




Clearly "context is everything".

Thus when speaking of the fird-and-brimstone eternal fire event called "fiery hell" in Matt 10:28 - and then looking at the "punishment" by fire and brimstone eternal fire of Sodom and Gomorrah - "given as an example of undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" the reader will see that both Peter and Jude argue that Sodom is a valid "example" of the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;



And by contrast - you are arguing that Luke 7:27 is the better "example" for our focus on the issue of "destruction" and fiery hell.

Luke 7
27 "This is the one about whom it is written,
'BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU,
WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU.



Right then - we leave that one as an "exercise for the reader" to see which "example" is the more instructive and applicable when it comes to "destruction" in fiery hell.



I beg to differ.


17 Then to Adam He said, ""Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, "You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
18 ""Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.''

22 Then the LORD God said, ""Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever''
23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.




Christ does not argue "They are not able to instantly reduce the body to dust - but must wait a while".

Christ does not argue that there is anything "lacking" at all in what they are able to do to the body.

Christ's argument is that they are not able to do to the soul - what they are able to do to the body.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You missed my point! A verb does not change meaning from text to text.

Appollumi -

1. to destroy
2. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
3. render useless
4. to kill
5. to declare that one must be put to death
6. metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
7. to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
8. to destroy
   1. to lose

You have selected the third application above - and have tried to shoehorn all of them into that one.

I have shown that context determine the one you select. A wooden rule is not possible here.

This is especially true when there is much more Biblical evidence that must be considered in order to draw final conclusions. When the overall Biblical evidence is brought into this discussion it will be seen that your theory is developed by dismissing other Biblical evidences to the contrary.

It is possible that additional Bible evidence will show my position to be in error at some point - but as it is now - the usage that we see in Matt 10:28 for Appollumi in context with "fiery hell" fits perfectly with the "punishment" "Fire and brimstone" - "eternal fire" example that we have using this very word in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darrell C]

Hello Bob,

Indeed - given that the context in Matt 10:28 is a progression from "kill" to "destroy" and given that in Romans 14 your brother is not killed much less destroyed to some level "beyond kill" - the context demands that Romans 14 is not the example to illustrate the Matt 10 usage.

Rather we have the case of Sodom - undergoing eternal fire - illustrated as an example of "apollium" -- "destroy" that takes it all the way to "ashes".

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )




This text refers to the Spirit of Christ preaching specifically to the people of Noah's day (not before not after) DURING the time when the ark was being built.

As Peter states in chapter 1 "the Spirit of Christ IN THEM" was indicating the sufferings of Christ AND the glory to follow.

And in this case the "holy man of old" is Noah "a preacher of righteousness" according to Peter - 2Pet 2:5.

in Christ,

Bob

Hello Bob,

You have completely gone by the point:

It is the same word used and it does not always mean complete and utter destruction.

This is the basis of your argument, as well as some fancy vocabulation (I think I just made up a word...how do you like it?)

Also, to try to make the hearers of Christ's preaching those who were killed in the flood...

The Spirit of Christ which was in...who?

The ungodly destroyed in the flood?

No, Bob.

He was in the prophets, who ministered the foretelling of Christ to...

Those of us after the Cross.

What really should have given it away was this:

1 Peter 3

18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


This was after His death...being quickened by the Spirit.

As well as the fact that these were spirits that heard His preaching...and they were in prison.

They were dead, in sheol, and conscious.

I know there are many preachers today who preach to a sleeping congregation (and the congregation can't be blamed in some cases)...

But I'm sure not one word was missed by this audience.

Also, it was the longsuffering of God that is referenced, during the time the Ark was being built.

God bless.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In that list, I don't see "reduced to ashes" nor do I see "reduced to dust" nor do I see "unconsciousness" or "cessation of consciousness" or "anhilated"????

All of the meanings you have listed are not contrary to "render useless"? The terms "destroy" and "kill" and "ruin" or "put out of the way" or etc. do not conflict with the idea of "render useless." However, your definition conflicts with several listed.

Appollumi -



You have selected the third application above - and have tried to shoehorn all of them into that one.

I have shown that context determine the one you select. A wooden rule is not possible here.




It is possible that additional Bible evidence will show my position to be in error at some point - but as it is now - the usage that we see in Matt 10:28 for Appollumi in context with "fiery hell" fits perfectly with the "punishment" "Fire and brimstone" - "eternal fire" example that we have using this very word in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1. to destroy
2. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
3. render useless
4. to kill
5. to declare that one must be put to death
6. metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
7. to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
8. to destroy
   1. to lose

=======================
You have selected the third application above - and have tried to shoehorn all of them into that one.

In that list, I don't see "reduced to ashes" nor do I see "reduced to dust"

But you do see "destroy" and "bring to ruin" -- terms that fit perfectly with the fact that Appollumi is applied to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah such that "destroyed by reducing them to ashes" fits that description of their ultimate end.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )

All of the meanings you have listed are not contrary to "render useless"? The terms "destroy" and "kill" and "ruin" or "put out of the way" or etc. do not conflict with the idea of "render useless." However, your definition conflicts with several listed.

Neither does Lukes claim that fire and brimstones "destroyed them all" in anyway conflicted with Peter statement "destruction by reducing them to ashes".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Bob,

Your definition relates to material things "cities" not to spiritual things. Sodom and Gomorah are placed side by side with the Flood in Luke as types of physical judgement upon this existing pre-resurrected world and yet neither is given as a type or illustration for post-physical judgement or post-resurrected judgement. Proof is that during both of these judgements Noah and Lot were not "reduced to ashes" or drowned but continued in PHYSICAL LIFE without PHYSICAL DEATH. These may be types of Armageddon when Christ comes in "flaming fire" upon the living before the final judement.

However, the story (not a parable) of Lazerus and the rich man gives insight into post-physical death and judgement.

In no parable does Jesus ever give names of actual historial persons ("Moses and the prophets" "Lazerus). Furthermore this is a post death description as both are said to have physically died and the body buried. Even if it were taken as a parable it would continuing existence of the immaterial part of man and concious reality after death and separation of the just from the unjust.

The body parts ascribed to the soul are no different than the body parts ascribed to God as a "Spirit" in order to convey to our minds real characteristics about an invisible conscious Being.

Paul uses two Aorist infinitives to demonstrate total absence of time between being absent from the body and present with the Lord. Common sense demonstrates that such language indicates whatever used the body as its home departed into the presence of God and that whatever is described in self-conscious terms "I" and "me".

But you do see "destroy" and "bring to ruin" -- terms that fit perfectly with the fact that Appollumi is applied to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah such that "destroyed by reducing them to ashes" fits that description of their ultimate end.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )



Neither does Lukes claim that fire and brimstones "destroyed them all" in anyway conflicted with Peter statement "destruction by reducing them to ashes".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

Your definition relates to material things "cities" not to spiritual things. Sodom and Gomorah are placed side by side with the Flood in Luke as types of physical judgement upon this existing pre-resurrected world and yet neither is given as a type or illustration for post-physical judgement or post-resurrected judgement. Proof is that during both of these judgements Noah and Lot were not "reduced to ashes" or drowned but continued in PHYSICAL LIFE without PHYSICAL DEATH.

Both Peter and Jude argue that these cases are in fact "examples" -- "in undergoig the punishment of eternal fire". So we have to allow that statement to be true in some sense.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

These may be types of Armageddon when Christ comes in "flaming fire" upon the living before the final judement.

To the extent that fire from God - is "eternal fire" - then "agreed".

However, the story (not a parable) of Lazerus and the rich man gives insight into post-physical death and judgement.

In no parable does Jesus ever give names of actual historial persons ("Moses and the prophets" "Lazerus). Furthermore this is a post death description as both are said to have physically died and the body buried.

The Luke 16 parable comes in a long string of parables Christ is telling since about chapter 13.

In this parable we have prayers to the dead, we have Abraham in charge and no appeal at all made to God regarding the saints that have died and requesting help from them, and we have all the dead saints in Abraham's lap.

For that reason - Bible scholars who do believe in the immortality of the soul have still stated emphatically that Luke 16 cannot be anything but a parable.

And so in a parable - the key is the "application" - "IF they do not hear MOSES AND the prophets neither will they believe though one is risen from the dead".

The incidentals in a parable do not serve for doctrine. And this is especially true in this case - where we have incidentals being taken to the exclusion of the conclusion in the parable.

Even if it were taken as a parable it would continuing existence of the immaterial part of man and concious reality after death and separation of the just from the unjust.

Given that it is a parable - and in the application of the parable Christ's emphasis is not on the dead but on the living - "IF THEY" the living "do not listen to Moses and the prophets neither will THEY believe" they being the living - "though one rises from the dead" (the one in this case being Christ's upcoming resurrection). So while Christ's emphasis is on the living -- those who listen to scripture vs those who live in disregard to it - many Christians today read the parable of Luke 16 for some doctrine on "the dead" not the living.

In no parable does Jesus ever give names of actual historial persons ("Moses and the prophets" "Lazerus).

This incidental does not hold up as a rule in scripture. For example in the book of judges the parable of trees seeking a king - includes the names of the specific types of trees Judges 9:8-15 as they speak to one another about electing a king of the trees. There is no such thing as a rule for "parables" saying that if names are given - it cannot be a parable.

So I would argue that Matthew Henry, Burton Coffman, R. C Sproul and Albert Barnes are all correct when they state that Luke 16 is a parable - even though all of them believe that people have immortal souls that go to heaven when you die and are in a conscious state.

Paul uses two Aorist infinitives to demonstrate total absence of time between being absent from the body and present with the Lord. Common sense demonstrates that such language indicates whatever used the body as its home departed into the presence of God and that whatever is described in self-conscious terms "I" and "me".

1. There are not two immortal bodies promised in scripture. No body-sharing.

2. Paul does not say in 2Cor 5 that at death we depart into the presence of God. Paul is explicit "we desire to be absent from the body AND to be present with the Lord".

Paul does not argue that "he IS present" with the Lord at the time of this statement.

Your point that the soul that is in this body is that which will be clothed in the immortal body of 2Cor 5 and 1Cor 15 is true.

48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also[/b] bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "" DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.

Paul states in the above context to the 2Cor 5 points - that the imperishable immortal body is given to us when the "dead are raised imperishable".

In 2Cor 4 we have that same focus as the context for 2Cor 5

13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I SPOKE," we also believe, therefore we also speak,
14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.
15 For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace which is spreading to more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory of God.
16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.
17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison,

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Bob,

I like your spirit of seeking to be honest with the Biblical text but I think your reasoning has been tainted by making wrong turns with the facts of Scripture. I will agree with you that we have "to allow that statement to be true in some sense" but not the sense that your ultimate application demands.

I think your conclusions concerning the story of Lazerus will not stand up under scrutiny of the text.

Abraham is not in control but is simply in discussion with the rich man. This is hades not gehenna. There is no praying to the dead as Abraham distinctly says that the only resources the living have are "Moses and the prophets" rather than intercession with the dead.

Your conclusion that "Bible Scholars" who believe in continued existence of the soul insist it is a parable is fictious. Some may but not the vast majority. The vast majority argue against it being a parable as it does not contain the normal characteristics of any parable Jesus ever gave.

However, parables are TRUE TO LIFE REALITIES laid down to illustrate eternal truths. You would make it a FICTIOUS REALLITY and you would deny its obvious import if it were a parable and that is there is conscious activity after physical death, irreversable conditions after physical death, and conscious punishment after physical death, and no cessation of the soul after physical death and without these implications such a parable would be pointless as all Jesus would have to say to prove your position is to say "they died and was buried."

Both Peter and Jude argue that these cases are in fact "examples" -- "in undergoig the punishment of eternal fire". So we have to allow that statement to be true in some sense.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;




To the extent that fire from God - is "eternal fire" - then "agreed".



The Luke 16 parable comes in a long string of parables Christ is telling since about chapter 13.

In this parable we have prayers to the dead, we have Abraham in charge and no appeal at all made to God regarding the saints that have died and requesting help from them, and we have all the dead saints in Abraham's lap.

For that reason - Bible scholars who do believe in the immortality of the soul have still stated emphatically that Luke 16 cannot be anything but a parable.

And so in a parable - the key is the "application" - "IF they do not hear MOSES AND the prophets neither will they believe though one is risen from the dead".

The incidentals in a parable do not serve for doctrine. And this is especially true in this case - where we have incidentals being taken to the exclusion of the conclusion in the parable.



Given that it is a parable - and in the application of the parable Christ's emphasis is not on the dead but on the living - "IF THEY" the living "do not listen to Moses and the prophets neither will THEY believe" they being the living - "though one rises from the dead" (the one in this case being Christ's upcoming resurrection). So while Christ's emphasis is on the living -- those who listen to scripture vs those who live in disregard to it - many Christians today read the parable of Luke 16 for some doctrine on "the dead" not the living.



This incidental does not hold up as a rule in scripture. For example in the book of judges the parable of trees seeking a king - includes the names of the specific types of trees Judges 9:8-15 as they speak to one another about electing a king of the trees. There is no such thing as a rule for "parables" saying that if names are given - it cannot be a parable.

So I would argue that Matthew Henry, Burton Coffman, R. C Sproul and Albert Barnes are all correct when they state that Luke 16 is a parable - even though all of them believe that people have immortal souls that go to heaven when you die and are in a conscious state.




1. There are not two immortal bodies promised in scripture. No body-sharing.

2. Paul does not say in 2Cor 5 that at death we depart into the presence of God. Paul is explicit "we desire to be absent from the body AND to be present with the Lord".

Paul does not argue that "he IS present" with the Lord at the time of this statement.

Your point that the soul that is in this body is that which will be clothed in the immortal body of 2Cor 5 and 1Cor 15 is true.

48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also[/b] bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "" DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.

Paul states in the above context to the 2Cor 5 points - that the imperishable immortal body is given to us when the "dead are raised imperishable".

In 2Cor 4 we have that same focus as the context for 2Cor 5

13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I SPOKE," we also believe, therefore we also speak,
14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.
15 For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace which is spreading to more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory of God.
16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.
17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison,

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Both Peter and Jude argue that these cases are in fact "examples" -- "in undergoig the punishment of eternal fire". So we have to allow that statement to be true in some sense.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Bob,

I like your spirit of seeking to be honest with the Biblical text but I think your reasoning has been tainted by making wrong turns with the facts of Scripture. I will agree with you that we have "to allow that statement to be true in some sense"

Which is the point of difficulty in your position.

.

I think your conclusions concerning the story of Lazerus will not stand up under scrutiny of the text.

By contrast I note somewhat more objectively - that even Bible scholars that agree with the a conscious immortal soul idea in death - have concluded that this is a parable

I would argue that Matthew Henry, Burton Coffman, R. C Sproul and Albert Barnes are all correct when they state that Luke 16 is a parable - even though all of them believe that people have immortal souls that go to heaven when you die and are in a conscious state.

Abraham is not in control but is simply in discussion with the rich man.

In the text the rich man prays directly to Abraham and asks Abraham alone for a decision.

In the parable Abraham alone renders that decision.

Burton Coffman says this -

Burton Coffman

Verse 24
And he cried, and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.
Father Abraham ...
Here is found the absolute necessity for seeing this as a parable; for Abraham himself, like all the saints in death, is in the place here called "Abraham's bosom." Abraham is therefore a type of God who presides over both Paradise and the place of the wicked in Hades. This, of course, negates any support that might be supposed in this connection for praying to departed saints. Besides that, as Wesley said:
It cannot be denied but here in Scripture is the precedent of praying to departed saints. But who is it that prays, and with what success? Will anyone who considers this be found copying after him? F39

Your conclusion that "Bible Scholars" who believe in continued existence of the soul insist it is a parable is fictious. Some may ...

1. You just contradicted your own statement.
2. I never said "the vast majority" about anything.

My point is that I am showing a level of objectivity on this point that your argument has yet to match. Thus I find the logic in your choice to object to this point rather than to at least match it - to be illusive.

However, parables are TRUE TO LIFE REALITIES laid down to illustrate eternal truths.

It can hardly be argued that the Judges 9:8 example of trees going out to elect a king is a "true to life reality".

You need some other solution.

You cannot make parables walk on all fours - you have to stick with the application of the parable for the "teaching".

You would make it a FICTIOUS REALLITY and you would deny its obvious import if it were a parable and that is there is conscious activity after physical death, irreversable conditions after physical death, and conscious punishment after physical death, and no cessation of the soul after physical death and without these implications such a parable would be pointless as all Jesus would have to say to prove your position is to say "they died and was buried."

1. You argue everything in the parable BUT the application Christ gives to it. That is your first clue that you are on the wrong road.

2. In the lead in to this parable Christ had told a long string of parables and the Jewish leaders had objected. So in this parable of a case where Abraham is in charge of all dead saints - Christ gives them a story that they cannot help but enjoy - at least to start with.

Matthew Henry on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16
“As the parable of the prodigal son set before us the grace of the gospel, which is encouraging to us all, so this sets before us the wrath to come, and is designed for our awakening; and very fast asleep those are in sin that will not be awakened by it. The Pharisees made a jest of Christ's sermon against worldliness; now this parable was intended to make those mockers serious.”
…
Parables must not be forced beyond their primary intention, and therefore we must not hence infer that any one can befriend us if we lie under the displeasure of our Lord,...

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Technically Judges 9:8 is not a parable but an allegory and there is a difference. My admissions are not at all concessions to any final conclusions you have drawn, although, I am sure you like to view them that way.

The rich man spoke as would any of the jews standing around him hearing this story as they referred to going to paradise as going to "Abraham's bosom". All you have proved is that the lost rich man's view of Abraham correctly reflected the common jewish thinking and therefore gives more evidence it is a true story rather than a parable. All you have proven is a lost man's eschatology. However, Abraham never claimed to be sole control and instead corrected the wrong view of this lost man. However, it is the words of this lost man you are basing your proof it must be a parable upon. So your argument collapses entirely.

You can find "some" scholars who will embrace anything so quoting a minority opinion does not give any weight to your conclusions any more than quoting the opinion of the rich man gives any weight to your arguments.

Admitting that an "element" of truth concerning the destruction of Sodom to eternal judgement does not support your position or weaken mine at all since I have never denied that fire and brimstone reflect eternal judgement.

What application did Jesus give that was contrary to the obvious applications given throughout this story that I have listed? Only an applicaton that conflicts with those I have given could be any value to your position as the applications I have given are inherent in the very nature of the story.

Both Peter and Jude argue that these cases are in fact "examples" -- "in undergoig the punishment of eternal fire". So we have to allow that statement to be true in some sense.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;



Which is the point of difficulty in your position.



By contrast I note somewhat more objectively - that even Bible scholars that agree with the a conscious immortal soul idea in death - have concluded that this is a parable





In the text the rich man prays directly to Abraham and asks Abraham alone for a decision.

In the parable Abraham alone renders that decision.

Burton Coffman says this -





1. You just contradicted your own statement.
2. I never said "the vast majority" about anything.

My point is that I am showing a level of objectivity on this point that your argument has yet to match. Thus I find the logic in your choice to object to this point rather than to at least match it - to be illusive.




It can hardly be argued that the Judges 9:8 example of trees going out to elect a king is a "true to life reality".

You need some other solution.

You cannot make parables walk on all fours - you have to stick with the application of the parable for the "teaching".



1. You argue everything in the parable BUT the application Christ gives to it. That is your first clue that you are on the wrong road.

2. In the lead in to this parable Christ had told a long string of parables and the Jewish leaders had objected. So in this parable of a case where Abraham is in charge of all dead saints - Christ gives them a story that they cannot help but enjoy - at least to start with.




in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Technically Judges 9:8 is not a parable

It is a fictitious story used to illustrate a point - and it names the trees.

The "insert" that people try - such that "using a name means it is a real historic account" does not work.

Thus Matthew Henry, Burton Coffman, R. C Sproul and Albert Barnes are all correct when they state that Luke 16 is a parable - the use of "names" not withstanding.

The rich man spoke as would any of the jews standing around him hearing this story as they referred to going to paradise as going to "Abraham's bosom".

There is no mention at all of "paradise" in Luke 16 --- neither is there any statement in the Bible that tells us that "the name for Paradise is Abraham's bosom".

The point remains.

All you have proved is that the lost rich man's view of Abraham correctly reflected the common jewish thinking and therefore gives more evidence it is a true story rather than a parable.

On the contrary - Christ's parables often placed someone in the role of doing or saying something that the Jewish leaders would identify with -

Abraham never claimed to be sole control and instead corrected the wrong view of this lost man.

On the contrary - in this parable the rich man does not pray to God - he prays to Abraham.

In this parable Abraham does not say "why ask me - am I sovereign over all the dead? Ask God - He alone can render a decision".

The details simply do not fit what you would have hoped.

You can find "some" scholars who will embrace anything so quoting a minority opinion does not give any weight to your conclusions

any more than quoting the opinion of the rich man gives any weight to your arguments.

I quote well known - Bible scholars that DO NOT agree with me on the subject of soul sleep or immortality of the soul and show that even THEY are not blind to the problems in Luke 16 with those who want to imagine that parable to be a real historic account.

Your response to that level of objectivity - is not to match it - rather it is to complain that I am doing it without commenting on the fact that you have nothing to offer at that level of objectivity.

Thus your argument is only meant to convince "you" rather than to provide a compelling case for the unbiased objective reader.

Another glaring aspect of the Luke 16 parable that you miss is that the Jews were not getting "daily telegrams from Abraham" such that we might be at liberty to "imagine" that they viewed this account of the dead as a well known trusted historic account of what the dead are doing.

IF they were to take this as a valid historic account it would have to be based on their implicit TRUST in Christ as a revealer of news events taking place among the dead. Clearly no such trust existed. Thus there was no way at all for them to conclude that Christ was accurately describing events among the dead.

AT BEST they would have taken it as a parable EVEN if in some strange science scenario that might propose - Christ was intending to hand them a "news bulletin" from Abraham among the dead.

The point regarding Luke 16 remains and Matthew Henry, R. C Sproul and the rest are not the unknown minority that you seem to imagine.

in any case - you are making your argument from a parable that even those scholars who believe in the immortality of the soul and conscious existence in death - do not find to be an historic account (at least in the well known cases and according to Dr. Douglas Finkbeiner, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary Lansdale, PA - most scholars view this as a parable.

Bob